Supreme Court acquits accused in forgery case due to lack of primary evidence: C. Kamalakkannan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 03, 2025
Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.

In a case highlighting the critical importance of evidence in criminal trials, the Supreme Court of India addressed the question of whether a conviction can be sustained when primary evidence is lacking. The case revolved around allegations of forgery related to a marksheet used for admission to a medical course. The Supreme Court, in C. Kamalakkannan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, acquitted the accused, emphasizing the necessity of proving the authenticity of documents through primary evidence. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint that a marksheet produced by Kumari Amudha for admission to the MBBS course was fabricated. The marksheet showed that Kumari Amudha had secured 1120 marks out of 1200, whereas she had actually secured only 767 marks. Following an investigation, a criminal case (FIR No. 2172 of 1996) was registered, and a charge-sheet was filed against C. Kamalakkannan (the appellant) and other co-accused persons for offences under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial Court convicted the appellant and co-accused persons for offences under Sections 120B, 468, and 471 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment already undergone as an undertrial (from October 22, 1996, to November 16, 1996), along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for Section 120B IPC, Rs.1,000/- for Section 468 IPC, and Rs.2,000/- for the two counts of Section 471 IPC.

In appeal, the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, affirmed the trial Court’s judgment but reduced the fine amount to Rs.600/- on each count of Sections 120B, 468, and 471 of IPC. The revision petition preferred by the accused appellant was also rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

Legal Framework

• Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy. It states that whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall be punished in the manner provided in the section.
• Section 468, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines forgery for the purpose of cheating. It states that whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 471, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses using a forged document as genuine. It states that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.
• Section 109, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines abetment. It states that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and there is no express provision made for its punishment, then the abettor is liable to the punishment provided for the offence.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Shri S. Nagamuthu):

• ✓ The primary allegation against the appellant was that he prepared the postal cover in which the forged marksheet was supposedly transmitted.
• ✓ The trial Court’s reliance on the deposition of a co-accused to convict the appellant was illegal.
• ✓ The original postal cover was never produced or exhibited by the prosecution, making the conclusion that the appellant’s handwriting was on it baseless.
• ✓ The handwriting expert’s report (PW-18) was inadmissible because the reasoning sheet prepared during the examination was not brought on record or proved.
• ✓ The evidentiary value of the handwriting expert’s report was not adequately proved, as handwriting comparison is not a conclusive science.

State’s Arguments:

• ✓ The contention that the trial Court relied on the testimony of Vijaya Kumar (PW-9) was incorrect, as Vijaya Kumar was summoned to face trial himself, and his evidence was deemed unacceptable.
• ✓ The original postal cover could not be traced, justifying the reliance on a photostat copy as secondary evidence.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the prosecution had adequately proved that the postal cover bore the handwriting of the accused appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

• Murari Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704 (Supreme Court of India): This case was relied upon to determine the extent to which reliance can be placed on the evidence of an expert witness and when corroboration of such evidence may be sought. The Court in Murari Lal held that while the opinion of a handwriting expert should be approached with caution, it does not require invariable corroboration and should be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by the expert.

Authority Consideration Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, C. Kamalakkannan. The Court quashed and set aside the judgments of the trial Court, appellate Court, and High Court.

Treatment of Submissions Table

View of Authorities by the Court

• Murari Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704: The Court relied on this authority to emphasize the need for caution when dealing with handwriting expert testimony. The Court reiterated that the reasons for the expert’s opinion must be carefully probed and examined, and all other relevant evidence must be considered.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit C. Kamalakkannan was primarily influenced by the failure of the prosecution to present and prove primary evidence, specifically the original postal cover. The Court emphasized that without establishing the authenticity of the document, the testimony of the handwriting expert and other circumstantial evidence held little value.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the prosecution adequately proved that the postal cover bore the handwriting of the accused appellant.

Flowchart:

Prosecution Fails to Produce Original Postal Cover
↓
Original Postal Cover Not Exhibited or Proved
↓
Handwriting Expert’s Report Cannot Be Substantiated
↓
Prosecution Fails to Prove Handwriting on Disputed Document
↓
Conviction Based on Insufficient Evidence
↓
Accused Acquitted

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the fundamental principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the failure to produce and authenticate the primary evidence (the postal cover) was a critical flaw in the prosecution’s case.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Primary evidence is crucial for proving the authenticity of documents in criminal trials.
• ✓ The opinion of a handwriting expert must be supported by solid evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
• ✓ The prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the prosecution must present and prove primary evidence to establish the authenticity of documents in criminal trials. The failure to do so can result in the acquittal of the accused, even if there is circumstantial evidence or expert testimony.

Conclusion

In C. Kamalakkannan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to produce and prove the primary evidence, the original postal cover. The judgment underscores the importance of primary evidence in criminal trials and the limitations of relying solely on expert testimony without establishing the authenticity of the underlying documents.